In discussions with publishers at the annual BookExpo convention in New York over the weekend, Google signaled its intent to introduce a program by that would enable publishers to sell digital versions of their newest books direct to consumers through Google. The move would pit Google against Amazon.com, which is seeking to control the e-book market with the versions it sells for its Kindle reading device.

Yeah, Google technology vp Adam Smith mentioned this also during the IDPF digital book 2009 conference, a couple of weeks ago. Apparently the project is called 'Google Editions' for now. The good news is that Google supports ePub.

The bad news is that this would give Google even more information on individuals. Other than scrambeld searching(http://www.scroogle.org) I don't use google at all and encourage others not to do use them as well.

The bad news is that this would give Google even more information on individuals. Other than scrambeld searching(http://www.scroogle.org) I don't use google at all and encourage others not to do use them as well.

oh noes the big G is planning on taking over the world.
...
...
I say let them

google is a company that makes Money by giving away stuff free, they make money by marketing others people products and takeing a small percentage off the top, and if it wasn't for google you would have never found the product in the first place.

I'm sorry. I trust the big G, they have never hurt me, or anyone really. its conspiracy nuts who come up with this stuff.

oh noes the big G is planning on taking over the world.
...
...
I say let them

google is a company that makes Money by giving away stuff free, they make money by marketing others people products and takeing a small percentage off the top, and if it wasn't for google you would have never found the product in the first place.

I'm sorry. I trust the big G, they have never hurt me, or anyone really. its conspiracy nuts who come up with this stuff.

I am with you on that.

However, i think, that it will benefit people in the US, and for me in the UK/EU can only watch for better prices

You lose. Telling someone he is a conspiracy nut is akin to the methods used in the USSR, Eastern Germany, China, Nazi Germany to intimidate people who would go as far as think that the minority of people ruling over the vast majority were not above criticism.
You talk like the perfect slave/citizen in a totalitarian society, like the fanboy of the corporations whose products/services you use.
Too much power in too few hands is dangerous for democracy.
Databases (google is building the hugest database in history) destroy democracy, as was revealed during the last US presidential election. I remember seeing how for example the Democratic party used the very precise files they had on the vast majority of US citizens to deliver targeted political messages when they went door-to-door to try to convince people to vote for Obama. This way, people were convinced to vote selfishly basing their decision on precisely targeted talking-points that targeted a couple of their interests.
A serious voter in a democratic society should instead decide himself which issues are the most important not only for his own good but also for the general interest, and what exactly must be done about those issues. And then analyze by himself the platforms of the candidates to find the right one, already during the primaries.
And serious candidates should encourage people to vote that way, not cynically target people with the help of soulless advertisers.
Instead too many voters are overwhelmed by marketing campaigns that reach deeper and deeper into their minds to manipulate them, for example by inflating out of proportion new emotionally-charged issues like gay marriage, or by repeating key words like "change" ad nauseam, because advertisers found by psychologically studying panels of voters, that pushing those issues/words into people's minds was an efficient way to get many people to vote for one candidate or another.

However, google single-handedly changed the way searches are done. Having a website come up on the first page of G costs dearly. They have done away with keywords from what I can tell. They should have simply limited them to 15-25 words.

I say this because I've created a website for an architect firm which specializes in churches. Not very many of those around, it's a very specific genre, yet we don't even come up in the top 50 pages. We can't afford the stupid "ad words" they offer.

Anyway, all this to say that whereas the company is making great in technology, they need to get the monopolizing heads out of their assets.

The bad news is that this would give Google even more information on individuals. Other than scrambeld searching(http://www.scroogle.org) I don't use google at all and encourage others not to do use them as well.

I like the idea of Google competing with Amazon - though I don't know how successful they will be if Amazon routinely undercuts their prices. I'm also concerned that they appear to require net access for the reading device - as that would cut out the majority of dedicated readers.

I like the idea of Google competing with Amazon - though I don't know how successful they will be if Amazon routinely undercuts their prices. I'm also concerned that they appear to require net access for the reading device - as that would cut out the majority of dedicated readers.

The way I read it, Google's pitch is that they will let the publishers set the prices because they want to sell new eBooks at $25 and Amazon sells them for $9.99. Which I don't understand because Amazon pays the publisher, so it's not the publisher that takes any loss.

So, rather than competition the idea is to get the prices HIGHER. I guess the expectation is that the publishers would stop giving Amazon license to sell them and sell them via Google at much higher prices.

The way I read it, Google's pitch is that they will let the publishers set the prices because they want to sell new eBooks at $25 and Amazon sells them for $9.99. Which I don't understand because Amazon pays the publisher, so it's not the publisher that takes any loss.

So, rather than competition the idea is to get the prices HIGHER. I guess the expectation is that the publishers would stop giving Amazon license to sell them and sell them via Google at much higher prices.

I for one do not see this as good for us customers.

BOb

and watch their market drop out from under them. if they do that it would just drive more people to amazon.

The way I read it, Google's pitch is that they will let the publishers set the prices because they want to sell new eBooks at $25 and Amazon sells them for $9.99. Which I don't understand because Amazon pays the publisher, so it's not the publisher that takes any loss.

So, rather than competition the idea is to get the prices HIGHER. I guess the expectation is that the publishers would stop giving Amazon license to sell them and sell them via Google at much higher prices.

I for one do not see this as good for us customers.

BOb

I agree totally - this seems to be opening a venue to increase prices and set up DRM/format wars - if you can ONLY buy a title in a certain format from ONLY Amazon or Google - it's a sellers market for the etailer.
One key point is whether publishers would be willing to dump Amazon sales (at whatever price Amazon sets) to try & get higher prices via Google. A kind of E-extortion for ebook owners.
Which would lead to (IMHO) even more pirating to avoid both overlords.

You lose. Telling someone he is a conspiracy nut is akin to the methods used in the USSR, Eastern Germany, China, Nazi Germany to intimidate people who would go as far as think that the minority of people ruling over the vast majority were not above criticism.
You talk like the perfect slave/citizen in a totalitarian society, like the fanboy of the corporations whose products/services you use.
Too much power in too few hands is dangerous for democracy.
Databases destroy democracy, as was revealed during the last US presidential election. I remember seeing how for example the Democratic party used the very precise files they had on the vast majority of US citizens to deliver targeted political messages when they went door-to-door to try to convince people to vote for Obama. This way, people were convinced to vote selfishly basing their decision on precisely targeted talking-points that targeted a couple of their interests.
A serious voter in a democratic society should instead decide himself which issues are the most important not only for his own good but also for the general interest, and what exactly must be done about those issues. And then analyze by himself the platforms of the candidates to find the right one, already during the primaries.
And serious candidates should encourage people to vote that way, not cynically target people with the help of soulless advertisers.
Instead too many voters are overwhelmed by marketing campaigns that reach deeper and deeper into their minds to manipulate them, for example by inflating out of proportion new emotionally-charged issues like gay marriage, or by repeating key words like "change" ad nauseam, because advertisers found by psychologically studying panels of voters, that pushing those issues/words into people's minds was an efficient way to get many people to vote for one candidate or another.

baaaa, baaaa.

where are your riddles three? I didn't know I was walking over a bridge but ill answer them. atleast make them witty and funny.